Maybe the mistake was made in the Preamble of our Constitution. We
The People should probably have been written We The
Individuals. That sounds a little silly, but if you had told me in
1787 how far the United States would drift from the spirit of the
Constitution and the original intent of the founding fathers, I would
have wanted the document that solidified a new nation to be as clear as
humanly possible.

The single biggest threat to freedom in this country is the destruction
of the rights of the individual. This is actually the biggest threat to
freedom anywhere. When the rights of the individual are trampled upon
by a government, whether that government acts in the name of one man or
in the name of 250 million men, then the spirit of freedom is gone.
Whether that government claims to be a democratic republic or a
socialist dictatorship, when the rights of the individual are sacrificed
to the whim of other individuals, ALL freedom suffers.

The only legitimate job of a government should be to protect the rights
of its citizens and to mediate contractual disputes between them. What
we have now is not a government that protects its citizens
rights, but a government that attacks, limits and removes its
citizens rights.

The current number of laws on the books are staggering. And many of
those laws defy common sense. Common law is very basic. It protects
the rights of the individual and the individual's property from the
actions of other individuals. But our current system is regulation
after inconsistent regulation. Censorship, banned substances, outlawed
practices are everywhere. If you ask why people seem to have no respect
for the law anymore, I will answer that it is because the lawmakers have
no respect for the people anymore.

Thomas Jefferson said in his first Inaugural Address: "Sometimes it
is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can
he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found
angels in the forms of kings to govern him?" Why do we allow
legislators to govern our personal lives? Do they hold all the
answers? Do legislators live perfect lives? Do the people that they
represent have all the answers? Do the people that they represent live
perfect lives?

Too many laws are passed "in the name of society" or "for the good of
society." Well, what is society? Society is made up of individuals.
If a law is passed that is done not to protect individual rights, but to
enforce a certain type of behavior, how can it be expected to be upheld
and observed by the citizens? More often than not, laws are passed not
"for the good of society" but rather "for the good of the majority" or
"for the good of the special interests." This can be anything from our
current drug laws, mandating prayer in schools, banning assault weapons,
or giving the IRS its seemingly unlimited power. It therefore becomes a
crime to smoke marijuana, own certain brands of firearms or to cheat on
your taxes, although your "crime" has no victims.

Who can respect a government that allows its citizens to smoke tobacco,
but puts its citizens who smoke marijuana in jail? Who can respect a
government that lets rapists out of jail early to make room for drug
offendors with mandatory sentences? Who can respect a government that
attacks it citizens for the crime of owning unregistered firearms? Who
can respect a government that penalizes its citizens for not
understanding its own ridiculous tax laws? Who can respect a government
too busy playing Robin Hood? Who can respect a government that enforces
a certain brand of morality or religion onto all its citizens?

Who can respect legislators making promises with other people's money?
Who can respect legislators making promises with other lives?

The law is so convoluted, and the power of government so rampant, that
Congress can create an entire criminal class through a single act of
legislation. Is it any wonder why the current campaign finance laws
are so confusing? What is preventing one political party to legalize
fund-raising practices that it excels at, while possibly outlawing
fund-raising practices that its opponents excel at. In short,
Congress can pass laws that outlaw many personal practices that the
majority party disaproves of. Congress has the power to put entire
social groups into jails simple for the "crime" of behaivor that is not
"approved by society."

The key word is approve. Although the actions of certain
individuals may not be approved of, to punish those actions through
legislation is outrageous. At the end of every act of legislation is a
jail cell. And when one majority, or one political party has the power
to throw its opponents into jail for actions that they disapprove
of...then what is the point of even claiming to be a free country
anymore. When one group of individuals, when the government has the
power to punish other individuals not for violating the rights of other
individuals, but for "inappropriate behaivor," the freedom as we know it
is over. When one group of individuals has the power to deny the rights
to other group of individuals...the spirit of America dies.

Any behaivor that an individual performs today without violating a
single person, without creating a single victim, can become a crime
overnight through a simple act of Congress. That is a VERY dangerous
power to entrust in the hands of a small group of legislators.
Especially legislators who are increasingly influenced more and more by
special interest groups and powerful lobbyists. Rather than beating its
competition in the open and free market, it now becomes a very real
option that many businesses can legislate their competition out
of business. It is less about business and more about power. It
doesn't matter how good of a businessman one is, it matters who you know
in Washington.

And it doesn't take much skill to hide political favors under the
shrouds of legislation done for the "best interest of society."

Anytime that anybody uses the power of government to shape either
economic or social policy, it is always done at the expense of the
rights of the individual. It does not matter if it is done at the
expense of one individual, or 250 million individuals, it is still
wrong. Is does not matter if it is the Democrats instituting economic
policies or the Republicans instituting social policies, it still is
wrong. It is wrong whenever any one individual or group of individuals
tries to impose their views of society onto any one individual or group
of individuals.

Any individual who chooses not to be a burden to society does not
deserve to have society be a burden to them. Any individual who chooses
not to violate the rights of other individuals does not deserve to be
rewarded with have those other individuals violate their rights. Any
individual who chooses not to run the lives of other individuals does
not deserve to have their lives run by other individuals instead. Just
because one happens to be in the majority on a certain issue does not
mean that the majority has the ultimate power to dictate social-economic
policy to the rest of the country, especially when those policies
violate individual rights. Rights are "endowed to us by our Creator"
not "endowed to us by our government." Rights can not be granted by
governments, but they can be forcefully removed.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent,
it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty
is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around
us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of
the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when
it violates the right of an individual." ~Thomas Jefferson to Isaac
H. Tiffany, 1819

It is time to repeal ALL laws that criminalize actions that have no
victims, and to spend all of our judicial resources into prosecuting the
real criminals...those who violate the personal rights of individuals.

Our Declaration of Independence holds that "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these,
are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these
rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to
alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its
foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

The phrase "deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed" is just one of the parts that we have forgetten. "Damn
the consent of the governed to the will of the majority" seems to be our
new creed.

The phrase "that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" seems to be another phrase that we need to amend. "The
pursuit of happiness as long as said happiness meets the majority of
society's approval" should be the new phrase.

Ah, heck. Why not just scrap the entire Declaration of Independence and
all over with a new one that reflects our changing attitudes? I mean,
why not just make it official?